Vata-L: Visual-Analogue Test Assessing Anosognosia for Language Impairment

Lack of awareness (anosognosia) for one's own language impairments has rarely been investigated, despite hampering language rehabilitation. Assessment of anosognosia by means of self-report is particularly complex, as a patient's language difficulties may seriously prevent or bias the assessment. Other methods, such as measures of self-correction and error detection, have provided valuable information, although they are an indirect form of assessment of anosognosia and are not exempt from methodological criticisms. In this study we report on a new tool, the VATA-L (Visual-Analogue Test for Anosognosia for Language impairment), geared at assessing explicit anosognosia for aphasia. The VATA-L compares the patient's self-evaluation with caregivers’ evaluations of the patient's verbal communication abilities in a series of common situations. By means of non-verbal support and a system of check questions, this test minimizes some of the methodological limitations of existing diagnostic tools (e.g., structured interviews), enhancing reliability, and enabling assessment of patients with aphasia. Finally, normative data provided in the study allow a clearer interpretation of the patient's performance and facilitate assessment of anosognosia

Predictors of functional outcome vary by the hemisphere of involvement in major ischemic stroke treated with intra-arterial therapy: a retrospective cohort study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Conflicting data exists regarding the effect of hemispheric lateralization on acute ischemic stroke outcome. Some of this variability may be related to heterogeneous study populations, particularly with respect to the level of arterial occlusion. Furthermore, little is known about the relationship between stroke lateralization and predictors of outcome. The purpose of this study was to characterize the impact of stroke lateralization on both functional outcome and its predictors in a well-defined population of anterior circulation proximal artery occlusions treated with IAT.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Thirty-five consecutive left- and 35 consecutive right-sided stroke patients with intracranial ICA and/or MCA occlusions who underwent IAT were retrospectively analyzed. Ischemic change on pre-treatment imaging was quantified. Reperfusion success was graded using the Mori scale. Good outcome at three months was defined as an mRS ≤ 2. Left- and right-sided strokes were compared for outcome and its predictors.</p> <p>Result</p> <p>Of 70 patients with median NIHSS score of 18 (IQR, 14-21), 19 (27.1%) had a good outcome. There were 21 terminal ICA and 49 MCA occlusions. There was no difference in the rate of good outcomes between left- (n = 9) and right-sided (n = 10) strokes (p = 0.99). There were no significant differences in occlusion level, age, ischemic change on initial imaging and degree of reperfusion between left- and right-sided strokes. Left-sided strokes had higher baseline NIHSS scores (p = 0.02) and lower admission SBP (p = 0.009). Independent predictors of outcome for left-sided strokes were NIHSS (p = 0.0002) and reperfusion (p = 0.006), and for right-sided strokes were age (p = 0.002) and reperfusion (p = 0.003). In univariate analysis, pre-treatment ischemic change on NCCT was associated with outcome only for left-sided strokes (p = 0.05).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>In anterior circulation proximal artery occlusions treated with IAT, hemispheric lateralization influences the clinical and imaging predictors of outcome. Most notably, NIHSS predicts outcome only for the left-sided strokes in this population. This finding has important implications for outcome prediction in the acute setting and indicates a need for stroke severity scales more sensitive to right hemispheric deficits.</p

2011 SOSORT guidelines: Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation treatment of idiopathic scoliosis during growth

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The International Scientific Society on Scoliosis Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Treatment (SOSORT), that produced its first Guidelines in 2005, felt the need to revise them and increase their scientific quality. The aim is to offer to all professionals and their patients an evidence-based updated review of the actual evidence on conservative treatment of idiopathic scoliosis (CTIS).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>All types of professionals (specialty physicians, and allied health professionals) engaged in CTIS have been involved together with a methodologist and a patient representative. A review of all the relevant literature and of the existing Guidelines have been performed. Documents, recommendations, and practical approach flow charts have been developed according to a Delphi procedure. A methodological and practical review has been made, and a final Consensus Session was held during the 2011 Barcelona SOSORT Meeting.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The contents of the document are: methodology; generalities on idiopathic scoliosis; approach to CTIS in different patients, with practical flow-charts; literature review and recommendations on assessment, bracing, physiotherapy, Physiotherapeutic Specific Exercises (PSE) and other CTIS. Sixty-five recommendations have been given, divided in the following topics: Bracing (20 recommendations), PSE to prevent scoliosis progression during growth (8), PSE during brace treatment and surgical therapy (5), Other conservative treatments (3), Respiratory function and exercises (3), Sports activities (6), Assessment (20). No recommendations reached a Strength of Evidence level I; 2 were level II; 7 level III; and 20 level IV; through the Consensus procedure 26 reached level V and 10 level VI. The Strength of Recommendations was Grade A for 13, B for 49 and C for 3; none had grade D.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>These Guidelines have been a big effort of SOSORT to paint the actual situation of CTIS, starting from the evidence, and filling all the gray areas using a scientific method. According to results, it is possible to understand the lack of research in general on CTIS. SOSORT invites researchers to join, and clinicians to develop good research strategies to allow in the future to support or refute these recommendations according to new and stronger evidence.</p